President Obama is rewarding the government of Sudan for permitting the referendum on the secession of South Sudan by removing it from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. This will drop some sanctions on Sudan just as protestors demand the resignation of President Omar Bashir, a man indicted for genocide who has recently pledged to turn his country into a Sharia state.
“For those who meet all of their obligations, there is a path to greater prosperity and normal relations with the United States, including examining Sudan’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism,” President Obama said. The State Department confirms that the process to de-list the African country has begun.
The U.S. apparently agreed to de-list Sudan if the regime of President Omar Bashir allowed a referendum to be held on whether South Sudan should become its own country. This motion was approved and the new country will be formally created in July. Around the time of the vote, Bashir announced that he’d transform Sudan into a state where all law is based on Sharia and Arabic would become the only language. This means that the U.S. will be starting a new relationship with a fully radicalized Islamic state that will promote the ideology behind terrorism, if not terrorism itself.
The State Department had previously set the stage for Sudan’s de-listing by saying the “bilateral counterterrorism relationship remains solid” but that “hard-line” elements were upset that the U.S. had not removed their designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism because of this cooperation. The State Department praised Sudan for helping to stop the flow of foreign fighters to Iraq and cooperating in the investigation of the murder of two U.S. embassy workers in Khartoum by an Al-Qaeda-linked group on January 1, 2008.
The State Department glossed over the Bashir regime’s current ties to terrorism, saying that although elements of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Al-Qaeda are in Sudan, the government “does not openly support the presence” of the latter two. Hamas is welcomed as “freedom fighters” but their activity is limited to fundraising, the State Department’s report on Sudan claims. The key word to notice in the report is “openly,” as it is highly questionable whether a regime as tyrannical as Bashir’s wouldn’t know about the presence of terrorists on its land. Even if Sudan’s words are being met with action, the State Department’s admission that it allows Hamas to fundraise is surely a qualification for remaining on the list of State Sponsors.
Various reports cast doubt on the State Department’s assertion about the nature of Sudan’s links to terrorism. An intelligence report in 2006 said that 15 members of Al-Qaeda were helping to train the state-sponsored Janjaweed militia in Darfur. In January 2009, Israel bombed a truck convoy in Sudan that was part of an Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ supply line to Hamas from Port Sudan. In April 2009, Egypt arrested about 50 Hezbollah members planning attacks on Israeli targets, some of which told their interrogators that they sought to send operatives to Sudan for training. The deputy-editor of an opposition newspaper was arrested in June 2010 for reporting that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards were operating a weapons factory in Khartoum that was supplying Hamas, the Houthi rebels in Yemen and unidentified extremists in Somalia.
At first I thought the picture in the article was our president, but I was wrong.
At first I thought our enemy was the conciousness of Islam, but I was wrong.
So, where are we going with this?
New World Order with Islam as our religion?
Hey, What's going on here???
I'm sure the media(being utterly fair and objective when it reports on Obama) will no doubt have headline stories on what a mistake Obama is making with respect to the Sudan. Katie Couric, ABC, MSNBC, and CNN I'm sure will all be reporting on this in depth.
“For those who meet all of their obligations, there is a path to greater prosperity and normal relations with the United States, including examining Sudan’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism,” President Obama said.
Yep, just in time for Southern Sudan to vote to break away and become a Christian State, he is rewarding them with normal relations. Never mind that he granted them a "waiver" for the use of Children Soldiers! Why would such a waiver be granted to anyone? Yet our President did just that. So much for the man who chocked up over the death of a 10 year old victim of a shooting in AZ. He proves he really cares for children with this waiver! Do you think he doubts if these people would hestate to use their children against the infidels of South Sudan? He knows exactly what he is doing and it is EVIL.
For secession to work in Sudan it must happen here, the South will rise again! I envision a secessionist/sovereignty movement in the US where hundreds of sovereign regions spring up. This will facilitate secessionist movements throughout the whole world.
Why do I have the feeling that taking Sudan off the terrorist sponsors list isn't a good idea?
Also for PhilDru,the reason for the Civil War in the first place was slavery,not states rights. You might want to read up a little,okay?
Oh okay, let's give Sudan a chance. Reminds me of a joke I once heard.
It goes like this.
Two men get captured by some uncivilized native group.
The chief says to the men "Roo Roo or death!"
So the first man says "Roo Roo." Then the whole tribe proceedes to rape him.
Then the chief says to the second man. "Choose Roo Roo or Death!"
So the 2nd man says Death!
The members of the tribe are sad and say "Awwww" in hearing the news.
So the chief (being sensitive to the wishes of his people) says to the captive,
"Okay death!"
The 2nd man is very relieved and says "thank you, thank you!"
Then the chief says,
"But first Roo Roo!"
Seriously folks, this administration is a joke.
Sorry, Ghostwriter, it was state rights and the desire of the South to not be overrun by the industrialised (and richer) North. Only when the Civil War was beginning to become unpopular in the North, Lincoln moved the emphasis (finally) to the question of slavery in order that he continue to maintain the momentum of preventing secession by the South. Of course, the South never stood a chance against the industrial-military complex which had already been developed by the North, but it was basically the last hurrah of the old "Gentlemenly" social order before the rise of the "Elites" – more accuratly descibed as a "Clique".
Sorry,TechOps but you're wrong there. There were an incredible amount of concern about slavery before the Civil War even began. You seem to overlook the Abolitionist movement in this country and concerns about the spread of slavery. Writings by a diverse group of people from Fredrick Douglass to Harriet Beecher Stowe testify to the inhumanity of slavery,a thing which you seem to overlook. Slavery was but one cause of the Civil War. Unfortunately,the South was never going to abolish it voluntarily so the war happened.
TechOps,I still think that you and PhilDru need to read up on your history a little bit more before making statements like this,ok?
"Slavery was but one cause of the Civil War. Unfortunately,the South was never going to abolish it voluntarily so the war happened. "
Not contradictory at all.
There might have been widspread concerns over serfdom but honest Abe mererly exploited it for political capital, it wasn´t among the reasons he nor the Confederacy got engaged in that war in the first place.
The US "praised" Sudan for cooperating with the investigation into the murder of two US Embassy workers…
Strange…the murderers were duly imprisoned: then they escaped, all four of them, never to be heard of again.
This kind of "cooperation" has flies on it.
Imagine if the Obama and US State Department put the same intensity behind asking the Sudanese leadership to stand down the same way the did with Mubarak.
The reason they didn't is because they don't consider the Sudanese government to be an enemy or evil or stained by the sin of imperialism the way they do about traditional American allies like Israel or England. On the contrary the Sudanese government is perfectly moral and decent according to their defective moral compass.
I am not understanding that what's going on here…………